If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

We began our series on Journolist earlier this week with the expectation that our stories would be met with a fury of criticism from the Left. A hurt dog barks, after all.

The response hasnít been all that furious, actually, probably because there isnít much for the exposed members of Journolist to say. We caught them. Theyíre ashamed. The wise ones are waiting for the tempest to pass.

There have, however, been two lines of argument that we probably ought to respond to, if only because they may harden into received wisdom if we donít. The first is that our pieces have proved only that liberal journalists have liberal views, and thatís hardly news.

To be clear: Weíre not contesting the right of anyone, journalist or not, to have political opinions. (I, for one, have made a pretty good living expressing mine.) What we object to is partisanship, which is by its nature dishonest, a species of intellectual corruption. Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too.

I had to mangle the title from the original to get it to fit. I don't like doing that, but the D.C. should make shorter titles.

Anyway, Tucker basically fires a volley at the outed "journalists". He basically says, "If you want to turn this into a fight, bring it, I've got plenty more to publish."

"In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
óThomas Paine, Common Sense

whats funny is i sent a story from the DC to my government teacher last semester and he told me to take what they said worth a grain of salt (he has the same opinion with Fox and Drudge). He's a "classical libertarian". I wish I was still in his class to hear what he has to say about the DC and "tradtional" media now. I pretty much blasted his opinion on alternative media in my final (i didn't get it back so idk what his response to it was). turns out I was right about old media vs new media.

I love this quote:

Plus, a lot of the material on Journolist is actually pretty banal. In addition to being partisan hacks, a lot of these guys turn out to be pedestrian thinkers. Disappointing.

whats funny is i sent a story from the DC to my government teacher last semester and he told me to take what they said worth a grain of salt (he has the same opinion with Fox and Drudge). He's a "classical libertarian".

Does that mean he's a libertarian in the Bill Maher, "libertarian equals progressive who wants legal weed" sense? I swear I want to wring Bill Maher's neck when he lies and calls himself a libertarian. It's kind of funny he put it in the words "classical libertarians" because real libertarians like Badnarik, Browne, Ron Paul, etc. call themselves "classical liberals". It's strange.

Originally Posted by fettpett

I wish I was still in his class to hear what he has to say about the DC and "tradtional" media now. I pretty much blasted his opinion on alternative media in my final (i didn't get it back so idk what his response to it was). turns out I was right about old media vs new media.

"In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
óThomas Paine, Common Sense

Does that mean he's a libertarian in the Bill Maher, "libertarian equals progressive who wants legal weed" sense? I swear I want to wring Bill Maher's neck when he lies and calls himself a libertarian. It's kind of funny he put it in the words "classical libertarians" because real libertarians like Badnarik, Browne, Ron Paul, etc. call themselves "classical liberals". It's strange.

he worked for Engler, Supported Regan, Goldwater. But doesn't like the TEA Party or Conservatives like Palin, Beck, etc

And the old media scratches its head as news consumers abandon them in droves. This is an object lesson in why, but they won't change. Like the people in Washington DC, they will pretend to "find Jesus", but they won't change; they need to be changed (i.e. replaced).

As for Libertarianism, my entire adult life I have been a conservative independent voter that has voted Republican. That was how I identified myself politically and I knew very little about Libertarians, save sound bytes that left me thinking they were wackos that want to turn back the clock of history; that was until the last presidential campaign and Ron Paul's candidacy forced me to learn more about Libertarianism.

What I found was that there is indeed a wacko faction (hello Jesse Ventura) that identifies with the Libertarian Party, but that is essentially true of any group. However, I also found a great many points that I agreed with within the Libertarian Party; and others I don't agree with. At the end of the day I found myself identifying my political view as conservative independent with Libertarian influences. In a way, I think that is sort of the identity of the Tea Party movement.

Pure Libertarianism as I understand it (or perhaps misunderstand it) would like to put the proverbial toothpaste back in the tube. I do not believe that is possible, even if it is desirable by some. What I think is: a) Taking a balanced and ideological eclectic approach we can stop further erosion of the original intent of the Constitution; b) Repeal what travesties we can and rebuild an allegiance to the charter of this nation; and finally c) Make sure that government (esp. Congress and the Executive) only pass laws and execute orders within the constraints of our Constitution, with any laws or actions not specifically enumerated within that charter follow the path assigned in Article 5 of that document.

It is sobering to consider how few Constitutional amendments have been passed and how such amendments have become more scarce the older this nation has become and the more a soft and hardening tyranny has taken hold.

Together we prevail, divided we fall.

"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)

It was the study of economics and monetary systems that brought me to libertarianism. I, like most self-described libertarians am probably not a hardliner libertarian, except when it comes to markets.

I agree with the whole premise of going back. At this point we almost have to go back to a free, unregulated market just to drive the kind of growth required to afford our social programs. I also see that we can't simply undo a lot of what has been done, but what has been done has been done over the course of centuries, and we can undo it at the same rate so long as the trend is going back towards freedom and distributed power. I firmly believe the American public wants freedom, both socially and economically, and they want it more than government handouts and freebies. It's just that most accept what they have and try to make a living with it instead of looking for a better way, which in our case is the original way.

"In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
óThomas Paine, Common Sense

In the current situation, we must prevail before we can stand. Remember that.

"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)

I also see that we can't simply undo a lot of what has been done, but what has been done has been done over the course of centuries, and we can undo it at the same rate so long as the trend is going back towards freedom and distributed power.

Very, very well said, Malloc.

"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)

well I emailed my gov teacher and asked him for his take on the story, and got this reply:

I'm not sure of the connection to the EC on the Final, but as I mentioned earlier, Tucker Carlson continues to disappoint. His so-called expose sounds very much like the "problems" at FOX. During the Bush years, they actually read the Bush talking points as "news" and showed the administrations video clips as "news" they also got caught actually buying "journalists" to promote particular positions. The Sherrold issue is more of the same. Tucker needs to look in the mirror [did he ever report that his reporting on Acorn turned out to be false - the videos were heavily edited to "prove" a nonexistent point, two state attorneys general cleared Acorn of all charges and the Congressional investigation also cleared Acorn. One court actually went so far as to rule that the funding cut was illegal] When Tucker rediscovers the ability to honestly report and correct mistakes, I may consider him credible. For someone who claimed to be the heir to William F. Buckley, Tucker sounds more like Rush. If you truly embrace the conservative point of view read some Buckley. Buckley forced the Republicans to disavow the fringe groups like the John Birch Society and the white supremacy groups. Buckley, along with others, created the modern Republican Party that actually presented an alternate view of governance from the "Great Society" Democratic Party and formed the basis for folks like Reagan and George HW Bush as opposed to the current conservatives who chant "government is evil and cut taxes" while feeding at the public trough.
If you listen to the liberal media that Tucker bashes, you will notice that they are criticizing in a lot of policy areas. The so-called conservative media never criticized Bush II. [I'm still waiting for the links you promised showing FOX being critical of Bush II] Heck, they tarred & feathered and fired David Frum [a Bush II speechwriter (Axis of evil)] for daring to say the Republicans needed to offer an alternative rather than just opposing Obama.

OK more than you probably wanted but the true test of be educated is the ability to look at the other sides' position and analyze & critique it along with proposing a different point of view or alternative policy.

/sigh basicly "don't trust anything other than old media" and nothing actually pertianing to the story it's self and lets bash Fox News...figures LOL